The Post 's editorial page has tried to throw cold water on the significance of the so-called Downing Street memos, but in a page one article in the paper today, it provides further evidence for both the authenticity of the memos and the centrality of their role in British decision-making leading up to war

By William E. Jackson, Jr. Editor & Publisher

(June 28, 2005) -- The Washington Post editorial page has tried to throw cold water on the significance of the so-called Downing Street memos. But in a Page One article in The Post today ("From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War: Blair's Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems") -- filed from London by Glenn Frankel, and contributed to by Walter Pincus in Washington -- the paper provides further evidence for both the authenticity of the Downing Street Memos and the centrality of their role in British decision-making leading up to war.

Eight secret documents first disclosed by Sunday Times reporter Michael Smith, new interviews conducted by Post reporters, and additional written accounts together reveal that behind the scenes, British government officials at the highest levels believed in 2002 that the Bush Administration was already committed to a war that they thought was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

Officials foresaw a host of problems that later would surface following the 2003 invasion and occupation. But they could dissuade neither their American counterparts nor their own leader from moving toward war.